[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Fix for drawing round endcaps on scaled lines.

Jim Graham james.graham at oracle.com
Tue Jul 13 19:25:57 UTC 2010

Hi Denis,

It's been a while since I looked at this specific code, but I believe 
there may be problems with making them singletons in that we allow 
rendering from multiple threads and so making the code that uses these 
facilities single-threaded would be a big issue.

If they are expensive to create we could implement synchronized access 
to a "cache of one" which would take care of 99% of the cases where 
there really is only one thread running.  The way this would work is:

	public static synchronized Foo getFoo() {
	    Foo f = fooinstance
	    if (f == null) {
	        return new Foo();
	    fooinstance = null;
	    return f;

And an associated synchronized method to return a Foo back to the static 
variable.  But, really this is overkill unless we find that these 
objects are causing serious construction issues.  Given how much of 
their data would need to be updated on each construction, I'm guessing 
that the actual constructor is in the noise...


On 7/12/2010 7:10 AM, Denis Lila wrote:
> The no argument constructor becoming private was not something I
> intended. It was left over from a change I made that didn't work out
> so well, and it escaped my mind to change it back when I sent the webrev.
> It's true that it's not used, and we could remove it, but it seems to
> me like the reason for it, setOutput, and setParameters being there is
> so that the same object can be used to render to more than one output,
> using input from different sources.
> The only benefit this has is saving the creation of some Stroker objects,
> which probably isn't a big deal, so I think we should remove this functionality
> from pisces.
> Then again, if we want to keep it, I think we should make Stroker, Dasher,
> and Renderer singletons, otherwise, it's hard to see how this functionality
> can be used properly. Making them singletons would also remove the requirement
> for client code to not use the object before setOutput and setParameters have
> been called, and we could make those two methods private (or remove them and
> move their bodies to a static factory).
> ----- "Jim Graham"<james.graham at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> Also, the Stroker() constructor, which was marked private in these
>> webrevs, isn't used - it should probably just be deleted rather than
>> made private...
>> 			...jim
>> Jim Graham wrote:
>>> Hi Denis,
>>> You moved some code around without modifying it.  This makes it hard
>> to
>>> see what changed and what didn't and verify that the changes are
>>> accurate.  Also, it adds diffs to the file that are unrelated to the
>>> fixing of the bug.  Was there a practical reason for why you moved
>> the
>>> code around?  In particular I refer to:
>>> - the setup code that deals with "if (joinStyle == JOIN_MITER)"
>>> - the setOutput method - which not only moved, but lost its
>> javadocs
>>> - computeMiter() and drawMiter()
>>> All of that code "appears" to be unchanged at first glance, but it
>> is
>>> hard to tell from the webrevs.  Also, a couple of stylistic issues:
>>> - you changed the declarations of isCCW which moved its arguments
>> over,
>>> but the continuation lines aren't indented to match
>>> - The two "flavors" of emitCurveTo() should probably be next to each
>>> other (i.e. not have emitLineTo() between them or fall between the
>> two
>>> flavors of emitLineTo()).
>>> In general I think the changes are OK, but I'm still reviewing them
>> and
>>> the above issues sprung to mind on a first pass (and/or they are
>>> complicating the "contextual" review) so I thought I'd mention them
>>> earlier than later...
>>>              ...jim
>>> Denis Lila wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>> I just noticed that approximation of circle arcs by bezier curves
>>>> had already been implemented in ArcIterator by Jim Graham.
>>>> It computes the same control points as my solution, but it does so
>>>> more straightforwardly, without any rotation, so it is faster and
>>>> clearer. I have updated my solution to include this.
>>>> The link remains the same.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Denis.
>>>> ----- "Denis Lila"<dlila at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>> I think I got this working. The webrev is at:
>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/bezierRoundJoins/webrev/
>>>>> (NOTE: this is not a final version. I have included 2 versions
>>>>> of 2 methods. Only one set should be kept. See below for more.)
>>>>> My Changes:
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>      I've made LineSink into an interface, rather than an abstract
>>>>> class,
>>>>> because all of its methods were abstract, so it makes more sense
>> this
>>>>> way.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>>      I've introduced a new interface that extends LineSink called
>>>>> PathSink,
>>>>> which allows the curveTo method, so there have been no changes to
>>>>> Stroker's public interface. When someone wants to create a
>> Stroker
>>>>> with a PathSink output, it simply passes its constructor a
>> PathSink,
>>>>> so the only changes outside of Stroker are in
>> PiscesRenderingEngine,
>>>>> where the methods that handle Path2D and PathConsumer2D objects
>>>>> create nameless PathSinks instead of nameless LineSinks.
>>>>> 3. In Stroker:
>>>>>      I've introduced a method called drawBezRoundJoin, analogous
>> to
>>>>> computeRoundJoin. In drawRoundJoin I detect whether the output is
>>>>> a PathSink. If it is, I call drawBezRoundJoin, otherwise
>> everything
>>>>> proceeds as it used to. drawBezRoundJoin uses computeBezierPoints
>> to
>>>>> compute the control points. computeBezierPoints computes the
>> control
>>>>> points
>>>>> for an arc of t radians, starting at angle a, with radius r
>>>>> by computing the control points of an arc of radius 1 of t
>> radians
>>>>> that
>>>>> starts at angle -t/2. This is done by solving the equations
>> resulting
>>>>> from the constraints that (P3-P2) and (P1-P0) must be parallel to
>> the
>>>>> arc's tangents at P3 and P0 respectively, and that B(1/2)=(1,0).
>> Then
>>>>> the
>>>>> points are scaled by r, and rotated counter clockwise by a+t/2.
>>>>> Then drawBezRoundJoin emits the curve.
>>>>>      All this is done in a loop which is used to break up large
>> arcs
>>>>> into
>>>>> more than one bezier curve. Through the iterations, the computed
>>>>> control
>>>>> points don't change - the only thing that changes is how they're
>>>>> rotated.
>>>>>      So a good alternative approach would be to do the rotation
>> outside
>>>>> of
>>>>> computeBezierPoints, and call computeBezierPoints once outside of
>> the
>>>>> loop,
>>>>> so that the control points aren't recomputed unnecessarily.
>>>>> I have included code for this in the methods computeBezierPoints2
>> and
>>>>> drawBezRoundJoin2. This is my favoured approach, since it is
>> almost
>>>>> as clear as the other one, and it is faster.
>>>>>      There is one more optimization that can be made, and I've
>> included
>>>>> it
>>>>> in a comment in line 703.
>>>>>      I would very much appreciate any comments about any of this,
>> but
>>>>> especially
>>>>> about the idea in line 703 and about
>>>>> computeBezierPoints2,drawBezRoundJoin2
>>>>> vs. computeBezierPoints,drawBezRoundJoin.
>>>>> 4.
>>>>>      Stroker used to only have lines, but now it can emit lines
>> and
>>>>> curves, so
>>>>> I needed to change the format of reverse, to not only store
>>>>> coordinates, but
>>>>> to also tag them as belonging to a line or a curve.
>>>>> Other Approaches:
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>      Since what needed to be done was to alter the behaviour of
>> one
>>>>> part of Stroker (drawing of round joins/caps) depending on the
>> type
>>>>> of the output object, I thought it would be appropriate to make
>>>>> Stroker
>>>>> an abstract factory, turn the methods that draw round joins/caps
>> into
>>>>> abstract ones, put all the common functionality in concrete
>> methods
>>>>> in Stroker, and put all the join/cap drawing methods in
>> overriding
>>>>> methods
>>>>> in concrete children of Stroker (instances of which were returned
>>>>> by static factories in Stroker).
>>>>>      However, this was a bad approach, because the round cap/join
>>>>> drawing
>>>>> methods are private, so the only way to call them in Stroker's
>>>>> children
>>>>> from public methods in Stroker is to cast "this". So the code
>> became
>>>>> littered with instanceof operators and casts. Not to mention that
>>>>> Stroker's
>>>>> public interface had to change, and some functionality was lost:
>>>>> Stroker
>>>>> allows changing it's output, so it is possible to use just 1
>> Stroker
>>>>> object
>>>>> to widen paths going to many different outputs (but not at the
>> same
>>>>> time).
>>>>> This could no longer be supported with this approach.
>>>>> The way I did it has none of these weaknesses.
>>>>> 2. As for algorithms for the circle approximation, I considered
>> 2:
>>>>>      a. Compute the control points using the constraints that
>>>>> B(1/3)=A(a+t/3)
>>>>> and B(2/3) = A(a+2t/3) (i.e. make the arc and the bezier curve
>>>>> coincide at 2
>>>>> evenly spaced points in the arc). This didn't work very well: some
>> of
>>>>> the end
>>>>> caps looked more like triangles.
>>>>>      b. Let B(1/2) = A(a+t/2), and B'(1/2) = A'(a+t/2). This
>> worked
>>>>> better, but
>>>>> still not good enough.
>>>>> If anyone knows of any better ways to compute the control points,
>>>>> please let
>>>>> me know.
>>>>> I'm sorry for the length of this. I tried to make it shorter.
>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>> Denis.
>>>>> ----- "Jim Graham"<james.graham at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>> Consider the case of using BasicStroke.createStrokedShape().  How
>> do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> know how many pixels the resulting path will occupy?  You can't
>>>>> reduce
>>>>>> to concrete samples if you don't know the transform.
>>>>>> So, for rendering, then you may be correct.  But for cases where
>> the
>>>>>> path is being asked for then beziers are the only responsible
>>>>>> solution...
>>>>>>              ...jim
>>>>>> Denis Lila wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Jim.
>>>>>>> I thought about checking the output and changing the behaviour
>>>>>>> depending on whether the output is a PC2D or a LineSink, but I
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> implement it because I thought the point was to get rid of the
>>>>>> sampling
>>>>>>> at this stage. However, if performance is the issue, then I
>> guess
>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>> start working on it.
>>>>>>> Although, I wonder whether it is really worth it. I think most
>>>>> lines
>>>>>> drawn
>>>>>>> won't be wider than about 5 pixels, which means that the
>> current
>>>>> way
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> emit about 7 lines, so that's 14 coordinates. 2 bezier quarter
>>>>>> circles will
>>>>>>> require 12 coordinates. In terms of storage, there isn't much
>>>>>> difference, and
>>>>>>> for lines of width 4 or smaller the current method is more
>>>>>> efficient.
>>>>>>> I'm also guessing that it's harder for the rasterizer to deal
>> with
>>>>>> bezier
>>>>>>> curves than with straight lines, so is it possible that
>> replacing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3.14*lineWidth/2 lines generated by the current method with 2
>>>>> bezier
>>>>>>> quarter circles isn't worth it (for small lineWidths)?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Denis.
>>>>>>> ----- "Jim Graham"<james.graham at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sigh - that makes sense.  One issue is that the resulting
>> paths
>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> generates are much more "verbose" than they need to be.  This
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> generally mean that it takes far more storage than it would
>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>> need - and it means that if the result needs to be transformed
>>>>> then
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> would take many more computations to transform each segment
>> than
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> bezier.
>>>>>>>> So, perhaps it would be worth having it check the type of the
>>>>>> output
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> do either a bezier or a bunch of lines depending on if it is a
>>>>> PC2D
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> LineSink?
>>>>>>>> Also, it isn't really that difficult to for Renderer to
>> include
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> Cubic/Quadratic flattening code, but it might involve more
>>>>>>>> calculations
>>>>>>>> than the round-cap code since it would have to be written for
>>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>>> beziers whereas if you know it is a quarter circle then it is
>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> know how far to subdivide...  :-(
>>>>>>>>              ...jim
>>>>>>>> Denis Lila wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So, I have been thinking about this, and I can't see a good
>>>>>>>>> way to do it that wouldn't involve heavy changes to Pisces.
>>>>>>>>> In order for Stroker to generate Bezier quarter circles, it
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> have to implement a curveTo method, which means Stroker
>> should
>>>>>>>>> start implementing PathConsumer2D and instead of using a
>>>>> LineSink
>>>>>>>>> output it would have to use a PathConsumer2D output (either
>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> LineSink should include a curveTo method, but then there
>> won't
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>> be any difference between a LineSink and a PathConsumer2D. By
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>> LineSink doesn't have any implemented methods, so why is it
>> an
>>>>>>>> abstract
>>>>>>>>> class as opposed to an interface?)
>>>>>>>>> Stroker is used in 3 ways:
>>>>>>>>> 1. As an implementation of BasicStroke's createStrokedShape
>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> uses a Path2D object as output.
>>>>>>>>> 2. As a way of feeding a PathConsumer2D without calling
>>>>>>>> createStrokedShape
>>>>>>>>> to generate an intermediate Shape. This uses a PathConsumer2D
>>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>> 3. As a way of feeding lines to a Renderer object, which
>>>>>> generates
>>>>>>>> alpha
>>>>>>>>> tiles used for anti-aliasing that are fed to a cache and
>>>>>> extracted
>>>>>>>> as needed
>>>>>>>>> by an AATileGenerator. Obviously, Stroker's output here is a
>>>>>>>> Renderer.
>>>>>>>>> 1 and 2 aren't problems, because the underlying output
>> objects
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> Bezier curves. 3, however, doesn't, and it seems like
>>>>> implementing
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> curveTo method for Renderer would be very difficult because
>> the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> generates alpha tiles is by scanning the drawn edges with
>>>>>>>> horizontal
>>>>>>>>> scan lines, and for each scan line finding the
>> x-intersections
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the scan
>>>>>>>>> lines and the edges. Then it determines the alpha values (I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> too sure
>>>>>>>>> how it does this).
>>>>>>>>> In order to implement Bezier curves in Renderer, we would
>> have
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> a quick way of computing, for each scan line, all its
>>>>>> intersections
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> however many Bezier curves are being drawn.
>>>>>>>>> I haven't given much thought to how this could be done, as I
>> am
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> familiar with Bezier curves, but it doesn't seem easy enough
>> to
>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>>> fixing such a small bug.
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: "Jim Graham"<james.graham at oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: "Denis Lila"<dlila at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: 2d-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 7:42:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
>>>>>>>> Eastern
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] Fix for drawing round endcaps
>> on
>>>>>>>> scaled lines.
>>>>>>>>> I don't understand - why do we generate sample points based
>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> size
>>>>>>>>> of the cap?  Why not generate a pair of bezier
>> quarter-circles
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>> the rasterizer deal with sampling?
>>>>>>>>>              ...jim
>>>>>>>>> Denis Lila wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>>>>> I think I have a fix for this bug:
>>>>>>>>>> http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=506
>>>>>>>>>> Basically, the problem is that if there is a magnifying
>> affine
>>>>>>>> transformation set on the graphics object and one tries to draw
>> a
>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>> with small thickness and round end caps, the end caps appear
>>>>>> jagged.
>>>>>>>> This is because the computation of the length of the array
>> that
>>>>>>>> contains the points on the "pen" with which the decoration is
>>>>>> drawn
>>>>>>>> does not take into account the size of the pen after the
>>>>>> magnification
>>>>>>>> of the affine transformation. So, for example, if the line
>> length
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> set to 1, and the transformation was a scaling by 10, the
>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>>> pen would have a diameter of 10, but only 3 pen points would
>> be
>>>>>>>> computed (pi*untransformedLineWidth), so the end cap looks like
>> a
>>>>>>>> triangle.
>>>>>>>>>> My fix computes an approximation of the circumference of the
>>>>>>>> transformed pen (which is an ellipse) and uses that as the
>> number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> points on the pen. The approximation is crude, but it is
>> simple,
>>>>>>>> faster than alternatives
>>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse#Circumference), and I
>> can
>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> from observations that it works fairly well.
>>>>>>>>>> There is also icing on the cake, in the form of slight
>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>> in performance when the scaling is a zooming out. Example: if
>> the
>>>>>>>> original line width was 100, but g2d.scale(0.1,0.1) was set,
>> then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> resulting line would have a width of 10, so only ~31 points
>> are
>>>>>>>> necessary for the decoration to look like a circle, but
>> without
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> patch, about 314 points are computed (and a line is emitted to
>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>> one of them).
>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate any feedback.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Denis Lila.

More information about the 2d-dev mailing list